@odinata Any 3 year old can look at those animals and see they are the same "kind" of animal. I can see why someone spammed you. Probably another atheist ashamed of you remark.
Wrong assertion. Why do you assert that information can only come from a mind? That's wishful thinking at best. Information has always been there and science gradually unravels it but there is absolutely no reason to think that this information came from a mind unless you want to explain how that mind acquired the information. Too much guess work..
Information has always been there...? Mind has always been there. You are sinking in metaphysical quicksand, struggling but getting nowhere. What good is information without mind? There is no guess work, we have the fortune of being able to empirically reflect on our own mental aspects. The problem is with materialistic assumptions.
@circusOFprecision "What good is information without mind? " It is not a matter of whether it is good or not. Please explain why information cannot exist without a mind capable of discovering it?
"we have the fortune of being able to empirically reflect on our own mental aspects" Yes all sorts of religions & cults conjure up a huge spectrum of baseless BS.
"The problem is with materialistic assumptions." It's all we got. The problem with the supernatural is which BS to cherry pick from.
Materialistic assumptions are not all we have, we have information and mental processes (the abstract realm of representations and experience). I guess those count for nothing..? Actually, the materialist is trying to explain away those things by reducing them to brute material interactions. Well, it just doesn't work, hasn't worked, never will work. It's that simple. The supernatural? That distinction is meaningless, especially if YOU define it as something that doesn't exist.
@circusOFprecision "we have information " Once it's acquired it's a material entity i.e. the equivalent of your hard drive. "and mental processes" is the equivalent of your CPU. Where is the mystery?
"by reducing them to brute material interactions." Every single aspect/function of the brain can be disabled (as with various examples of brain damage). There is not one aspect of the brain that survives disablement i.e. not one aspect that can't be explained by material functionality.
Information is not material, that is why it can't exist without a mind to process it. It doesn't exist except in the mind. And if physicists and biologists are now perceiving physical phenomenon and material entities as information, well...it doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that the universe is more like an underlying mind than a material world made of concrete entities. You have to do a lot of twisting and denying to avoid this conclusion, which is unintellectual
@circusOFprecision "Information is not material," Nor is an adjective or a noun. Like those, "information" is a description (or explanation) of the physical. Why do you confuse this with the supernatural? Supernatural is something that defies the laws of nature. "Information" does not defy the Laws of Nature. It is part of it.
"is more like an underlying mind" pure baseless assertion to satisfy wishful thinking.
Some evidence might be a good idea if you want to tout this speculation.
@hellavadeal "Doesn't it require a mind to find the information you talk about? "
Of course, in fact many many minds but that doesn't mean to say that a sentient mind (or minds) caused that information, especially out of absolutely nothing.
But the whole universe came from nothing with no guidance what so ever and just happens to be exactly as it should to host sentient life. I mean, that makes so much more sense and explains things so much better...not.
@circusOFprecision "But the whole universe came from nothing with no guidance" Why claim the universe came from nothing? Can you in fact define nothingness? Why make such assumptions with no basis & no supporting evidence? As for guidance then who or what guided the guider/guiders? All guesswork & wishful thinking. I'd rather say "i don't know" than assert something that is faith based & in all probability wrong.
"and just happens to be exactly as it should to host sentient life." Oh Really?
You don't know where the universe came? That's odd, considering all of the assumptions implicit in your line of questioning. I mean, it certainly did NOT come from a non-physical intelligence. So you do know, or you think you know, at least something about it.
Oh really? Yeah, really. The universe leads to life. If you tweak the laws of physics, you get no life.
@circusOFprecision "You don't know where the universe came?" Well nobody, including you, knows. The singularity of course is a fairly safe bet both from an astrophysics and mathematical point of view but we just don't know. Then, ok, we have to answer the cause of the singularity of course. The problem is, that if you place an unprovable assertion as your explanation then you stop searching for the answer.
"If you tweak the laws you get no life." How do you know that. You may get different life.
As for the lizards, there was no change in the mitochondrial DNA. Also, the cecal valves are due to a change in the internal environment of the digestive system. This change was caused by diet, which in turn altered the numbers and types of digestive microorganisms. It's adaptation, pure and simple. And even if there was a genetic basis, not merely an epigenetic basis or change in gene expression, the mechanism would still be unknown. But I bet someone would claim random mutation/selection.
They could be random, but it would need to be demonstrated that they were indeed random. To my knowledge, no one has demonstrated that the wall lizard "evolution" is anything more than adaptive response, which may not even equate to a change in the genome. Here's a question though. Are the physiological responses that allow for enhanced morphological features "random"?
@circusOFprecision It doesn't matter if there was a change in mtDNA, It doesn't even make sense why you would bring that up, if a change had to occur in mtDNA for it to be inherited then males wouldn't ever acquire any change. You're still talking about what amounts to Lamarckism, you're still claiming that the environment caused the change as opposed to selecting for the change. You have yet to evidence this on any level.
Why doesn't it matter about the mtDNA? Does mtDNA differ between species or not? Oh, that's right. There were no genomic changes period. My whole point. It's people such as yourself who want to interpret physiological responses and adaptations as "proof" of universal common ancestry. Well, that's the problem. It isn't. And it is the evolutionist that has yet to take these lizards and provide evidence for evolution.
@circusOFprecision Because mutations aren't only passed on via mtDNA. It's not just observed selection that is extrapolated to common ancestry, it's also homology in various fields that all line up into the same objective tree. The lizards *are* the evidence, they developed new digestive features in a human lifetime. If you're claiming it was a willful response, thats your burden to demonstrate.
Of course mutations aren't only passed on via mtDNA. But I have seen no evidence that there were any genetic changes. As I've said before, the cecal valves are not complex at all. The gut chemistry changed because the diet changed. The physiology of the lizards also changed. You can call it evolution, but these lizards are never going to be anything but lizards.
No, you need to provide evidence. You are the one making the claim that the lizards came from something different and can turn into something different. The burden is on you to demonstrate it.
The cecal valves don't have to be in the parent population. Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria. Again, the burden is on you to show the genetic basis of the cecal valves and how this genetic basis changed from the parent population to the "evolved" sub-population.
You claim evolution, so prove it. Don't keep trying to put the burden on me. I'm the skeptic calling out your fraudulent claim in this situation. The fact that you moronically try to twist the onus of proof only reinforces my belief that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Did the lizards evolve? Prove it. Are they going to change into something else? Prove it.
@circusOFprecision Now you're shifting the burden of proof and resorting to personal attacks to try to distract from the fact that you've made positive claims but provided no evidence. What is you're evidence that they're never going to be anything but lizards? What is your evidence that the cecal valves were created by the digestive bacteria?
In other words, you can't prove your claim. Rest my case. The point here is that I am not going to believe something just because it seems reasonable philosophically. There has to be evidence, not simply extrapolation on vague data points.
@circusOFprecision No, you've made two major claims that you have yet to even try to substantiate. Don't project your dodging as if it alleviates your burden.
The next time you are tempted to accuse a Creationist or someone who disagrees with you of goal post shifting or dodging the question, remember your actions here in this conversation. And then perhaps show a little humility. You obviously can't back your claim of evolution in the lizards with anything substantial. You can't demonstrate that a sub-population of lizards here will change into something fundamentally different. So just be honest. You have nothing here.
@circusOFprecision My actions in this conversation have been pointing out that you've dodged two clear and positive claims repeatedly. You haven't even attempted to define intelligence, and that's been well over a month ago since I repeatedly asked you to do so.
He is refusing to back his own claims. Not my problem. I don't smoke dope. Resorting to ad hominems doesn't help you back his claims either. It just makes you sound like a mean person and a liar, surely you don't want to resort back to that nonsense do you? You've come quite far in recent debate.
@circusOFprecision The bacteria in the wall lizard's gut actually are responsible for breaking down and fermenting the plant material that the lizards eat.
Yes, there is a new symbiotic relationship. The new diet provided a niche for the bacteria, the host organism physiologically responded. The cecal valves are a part of this process. Again, you can call it evolution. But no one is pointing out the mechanism and/or giving a scientific explanation. People are just saying "Look! A new feature! Evolution!" and then claiming this proves that the grand theory of evolution is true. That's all fine and dandy, nothing scientific about it.
@circusOFprecision I do know that there are other lizards that have cecal valves. So to say that it is a completely new structure in lizards is misrepresenting the facts. Those Italian wall lizards also had the cecal valve genes from the original parent population and then they were past down to future generations.
The evolutionists are saying that the parent population did NOT have the cecal valves. But that is a different claim than saying they did NOT have the genes. And yes, cecal valves are present in other lizards for the exact same reason they are now present in the wall lizards, diet. Either way, I've seen zero evidence from genetics that demonstrates the cecal valves are a completely novel trait and/or what mechanism put them there.
@circusOFprecision That's right ! Scientists need to find a completely novel trait and /or an original biological structure in lizards or in any other creature for that matter in order to call it evolution. It has to be so novel that a new name has to be given to that particular novel structure. Evolutionist see a new hairstyle on a lion's mane and say it is a sign of evolution. LOL
That's true, but even more importantly, they ignore the genetic evidence between sequences of DNA up to the level of organism. At the same time they assume that selection is happening down in the DNA. It's not. It's happening at the individual and population levels. Their unwillingness to look at all of the non-random, adaptive processes in between is their most fatal flaw. But it's above most of their heads just how seriously it destroys their precious idea.
If you study symbiogenesis, you would understand that the presence of various bacteria impact not only the physiology of their host organism, but can also impact their genome. It isn't a blind assertion, it is a scientific fact. Of course the adaptations were inherited, even though that contradicts the assertion by some that the cecal valves are a completely novel trait. But surely you can see the contradiction, can't you?
"People are just saying "Look! A new feature! Evolution!"
No, science is saying: "look, a ne phenotype.
And it has a coreresponding genotype".
That is the DEFINITION of evolution.
Your #3 problem is that you don't understand the terminology.
Your #2 problem is that you can't think logically or critically, and your #1 problem is that you think your religious opinions trump scientific facts.
You aren't presenting a shred of evidence to back up what you are saying. Even if it is true that the parent population had no cecal valves or the genes to create them, you have not provided any genetic evidence what so ever to demonstrate where and how they suddenly came about.
All you need to do is research cecal valves for yourself. I know you think you are an expert in all things evolutionary, but you could learn a thing or two if you just go look.
@circusOFprecision I know you think your projection of your biological illiteracy someone takes the burden of proof off of you, but it doesn't. You've made the claims, you have to back them up or admit they're baseless.
Wouldn't it be easy enough to find a lizard with cecal valves, and the egg of a lizard with cecal valves, open it up, and se if the lizard inside has cecal valves?
If the lizard in the egg has cecal valves, they could not have been created by bacteria in the digestive track--right?
Cecal valves are related directly to digestive processes having to do with bacteria. It isn't really a claim, it's an observed fact.
As for the lizards not changing, that isn't a positive claim at all. The positive claim is the one you imply when you suggest that the lizards will turn into something else. Your claim raises scientifically testable questions like what is the mechanism of this change? So I'm asking you to demonstrate it, back it up. Otherwise it's hot air.
I didn't say they are caused by bacteria. I said that the presence of new/different levels of certain bacteria related to a change in diet caused a physiological response. The cecal valves are required. You want to say the evolved. So show me the genetic evidence.
A lizard has lizard offspring. It's observable fact. No claim required. You are the one claiming they will change. Proof and evidence please.
No I didn't, I said that the presence of bacteria in light of a dietary change caused a physiological response. The bacteria are an indirect cause, but also evidence of what was going on. Perhaps you want to reread the article.
The offspring of those lizards will be lizards. It is a promise. So I'm good. Now it's your turn. Give me the genetic basis of change and your evidence that they will evolve into something else? Or you can keep running away. Last chance.
Why do you dodge? Your defeatist attitude really illustrates your willful ignorance. But whatever man, go school some Creationists and dispense with backing up your claims. Just put it on someone else as usual.
@circusOFprecision It's very telling that you think dodging is sign of a defeatist attitude when you've been the only one in this discussion to dodge anything.
You've claimed that bacteria caused the valves and that lizards will always be lizards.
Can you evidence either of these claims? Yes or no.
Can you demonstrate that the lizards evolved? Can you demonstrate how? Apparently not.
It's very simple, look at other herbivores with cecal valves and look at the bacterial makeup of their digestive system. Then determine how gene expression controls cecal valve development. If common ancestry is true, it actually undermines your entire point. The cecal valves aren't novel at all. They are probably turned on and off genetically. Show me evidence otherwise.
Symbiogenesis and gene expression is a scientifically valid idea. Different food, different bacterial niche, bacteria begin to live in that niche, physiological response, gene expression triggered, bam. There it is. Other lizards have cecal valves, it's in their DNA. Show me, with evidence, how I am wrong. Or stop complaining.
Now it's your turn. Explain to me how the lizards evolved and what it means from your point of view, but at least try to evidence it.
No I didn't. And the fact that you are trying to twist what I am saying to "win" an argument and avoid evidencing your own claims is completely discrediting you as an intellectual. But it's nothing new with you.
If ""Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria" were a true statement, then hatchlings with no exposure to these bacteria would have no cecal valves.
This is not the case.
Your assertion is false.
Cecal valves are an adaptation (note how that word is used properly), not an acclimatization.
Come on TSF, I would really like to know the truth. But every single time I investigate this particular situation, all I hear are evolutionists claiming a phenotype change with zero, absolutely zero genetic evidence to back it up.
I have already explained to you exactly what I think is going on. I don't have to support the claim that the lizards won't change into something else. I know they won't. And no one else will claim they will either. But you somehow shot yourself in the foot when you inadvertently claimed they will change into something else by trying to refute me. That is a truly positive claim. They WILL (positive) change. So, evidence it or not. You won't be able to demonstrate it.
@circusOFprecision Yes, you do, you said lizards will always be lizards, that's a positive claim that requires positive evidence. You also said that bacteria produced the cecal valves, another positive claim requiring positive evidence.
Two claims, zero evidence thus far. Can you support these claims? Yes or no.
What, may I ask in your evolutionary imagination, are they going to produce besides lizards? And how are you going to be able to scientifically demonstrate it? You can keep asking me to evidence a claim, but you really should think about evidencing your own claims.
Will they change into something else besides lizards? That is the positive claiming. Saying that they will keep producing lizards until extinction is perfectly in line with all of the evidence. If you have an alternative, present it. Oh, and prove there is no God while you are at it, I mean since you are demanding all this proof for a negative (won't change).
@circusOFprecision You claimed they will always be lizards, that's the positive claim. Your claim that you would need to either evidence or admit you can't.
The presence of cecal valves in hatchlings is the evidence that they are not simply a stimulus/response to some bacteria.
But even if that were the case, the fact that this stimulus/response does not occur in the parent population indicates its an adaptation--not an acclimatization.
You are severely handicapped by your lack of formal education in Biology.
You are leaving out the simple fact of epigenetic inheritance, which can explain why hatchlings would already have the cecal valves. Look, if you have the genetic evidence that there were mutations or something, just provide it and settle the issue. But my ideas about genetic expression and diet, coupled with symbiogenesis are scientifically valid ideas that do explain the evidence. So, you can't just say I'm wrong without any evidence of your own.
Bacterial production? Pay attention. The bacteria don't manufacture cecal valves. And I never said they did. I said their presence, due to the change in diet caused the cecal valves. Genetically, the development of the valves was switched on because of the presence of the bacteria. Get it? This kind of thing has been demonstrated many times. If it isn't correct, why not? Oh that's right, because mutations did it...
@circusOFprecision Yes, you did. Now you're just lying about your claim, which was "Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria" it was 3 hours ago.
Just like the last time when I destroyed you on the topic of microbial intelligence, you are unable to produce a shred of an argument or a piece of evidence. So all you have is the willful ignorance card. Man, you play that card like a champ. News flash, it will never take the place of a logical, intellectual argument. And it only weakens your position because you demonstrate you can't even hypothesize about it.
@circusOFprecision Much like now, when you were making the claim of intelligence on the microbial level, you were completely unable to even define the term intelligence, let alone evidence it existed in microbial life.
You seem to be under the impression that merely making an assertion makes it true, sorry, it doesn't.
They didn't produce the cecal valves. I explained to you that their presence caused the cecal valves. The cecal valves are genetically expressed by the host organism. It's called symbiogenesis and I explained this to you months ago. Also, you've never demonstrated any other mechanism as to how the valves came about. At least I have put forth something, you just point and say "evolutionary magic!". It's so utterly pathetic, why do you let yourself get away with it?
You continue do dodge the fact that cecal valves in hatchlings prove that cecal valves are an evolved trait and not an acclimatization to bacteria--as you falsely clam.
@circusOFprecision You mean you're shifting from the unevidenced claim of the valves being produced by the bacteria to the unevidenced claim that the bacteria triggered the valves.
No, I mean that the presence of bacteria can and does trigger physiological responses and there are many many examples of this. You simply rule out a plausible scientific explanation in favor of magical mutations. It's ridiculous. Especially since you offer zero evidence for your position. Please tell me you aren't representing science, just your willfully ignorant opinion.
Where is your evidence that it was due to random mutations? My evidence is in the dietary change which was accompanied by the niche for the bacteria plus the many instances where bacteria have been shown to trigger physiological responses. It isn't a full proof assertion but damn, it knocks the socks off of your magical mutation hypothesis. Again, where is your evidence for random mutations? Anyone able to answer for him? I'd like to see it.
@circusOFprecision No, that was your claim based on unrelated observations. Where is your evidence that that's how it occurred in this specific population? No, bare assertion does not 'knock the socks off' anything, you keep giving the impression that you think ignorance is an argument, it's not.
Okay, I can't help you anymore. For some one who is "scientifically literate", you sure do put your intellect in a very tiny box. And you didn't even attempt to convince me your position was correct. You didn't even put forth a hypothesis.
@circusOFprecision You've never been able to help because you think accepting alternate hypotheses just because they're different somehow makes it scientific. It's not a matter of putting my intellect in a box, it's that I realize being open minded doesn't mean accepting unevidenced claims just because their proponents think it deserves fair time.
I'm making a prediction that cecal valves are genetically suppressed when the diet changes. But when the bacteria come back in presence of the new diet, there is some form of chemical communication that causes gene expression to turn back on. Epigenetically, this "new information" about the environment is inherited by the offspring. That's what happened, not random mutations and a selection process. It happened WAY oo quickly for that. What I am saying will be confirmed.
@circusOFprecision So then you have a hypothesis and an irrelevant prediction. Doesn't help you at all. Also you're ignoring the fact that the genes for the valves were not in the parent population.
I've heard conflicting evidence of that. I have heard that the genes were present. But interestingly, I have much more plausible explanations than you do. You would have people believe that the cecal valve gene magically appeared through mutations. I mean, seriously? So, evidence please.
@circusOFprecision No, you don't, given that the genes did not exist to be triggered by the bacteria. I realize you have no idea what you're talking about so I can see why mutations might seem like magic, but they're not. Mutations affect genetic regions that express things which we call traits, such as morphology IE features in the digestive tract.
@circusOFprecision You do understand that if the gene doesn't exist at all, that it can't be triggered by a bacteria or otherwise, right? It doesn't have to substitute for the genetic evidence, it's concordant with the genetic evidence. You can keep demonstrating your egregious ignorance of genetics and now morphology, but it will never constitute a valid argument and I'll just keep calling you on it.
But it can magically appear through mutations in less than 40 years?
It would be concordant with the genetic evidence, if indeed you had presented such genetic evidence, which you have not. But there is one thing you are forgetting. The genome is dynamic and adaptive, and many other populations of lizards DO have cecal valves. So given all of that, I'm not just going to accept your mutation theory because you assert it. Fair enough? Something a little more substantial...
@circusOFprecision Mutations occur naturally, affecting phenotype with no magic required. Other populations may have cecal valves, their parent population did not. That's specifically why it's so significant. You can remain willfully ignorant, it's not going to affect the facts.
What caused the mutations? How many did it require? What was involved? How did the mutations effect gene expression? How did it all come together so quickly from scratch? Where is the data? You can't answer any of those questions. So, your nice little overly applied concept is fine if it suits you, but it doesn't explain anything. But I have been laying down natural occurring phenomenon of my own which you simply ignore.
@circusOFprecision Nice example of question saying there. I haven't ignored anything, you keep making assertions, I keep asking for evidence, you keep dodging. I would have no problem accepting the valves being triggered by bacteria if that's what the evidence showed, but it doesn't.
Your evidence doesn't even exist. You can't show me the genetic changes or what caused them. You are just assuming a random mutation selection process.
Think about it, without the bacteria, there would be no way for the lizards to sustain the diet they switched to. Without the cecal valves, the digestive process would be too difficult to achieve. Yet magically, all of this is solved by random mutations? That isn't an explanation, nor have you backed it with evidence.
You still haven't explained the cecal valves through your mechanism and/or articulated the evidence that supports your random mutation assertion. So, just because your story sounds magical doesn't mean that I am illiterate in genetics.
@circusOFprecision I already did, mutations can affect morphology, the cecal valves are a morphological feature. Not sure why this is hard to grasp, every morphological feature on the planet has been the result of descent with modification. If you think my story sounds magical, then yes, you're illiterate in genetics. This is first day stuff.
This is indeed first day stuff, and that is part of the problem. You are ignoring a whole host of other biological phenomenon that are integrated into gene expression and gene function. I get your assertion, I don't see any evidence what so ever to back it up. Like I said before, it sounds simple and routine, but this is science. And you are throwing out a lot of possibilities for a vague assumption.
@circusOFprecision Not an assumption, the valves don't exist in the parent population but they do in that population. Not sure if you're aware of even the basic principles of science, but there are no certainties, there is the best explanation given the data, and in this case it's random mutation and natural selection.
Actually, based upon consensus, when little else is known, that is simply the default explanation, not necessarily the best. Why? Because we know of other factors and biological processes that influence these sorts of events, which you are completely and utterly ignoring and/or indirectly implying through assumption.
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. The fact remains that your alternative is bankrupt any sort of verifiability. It's just one overused, uninteresting, vague, non-explanation.
This has been flagged as spam show
"Even the scientists in the article were unsure if there was a change in phenotype or if the changes were from environmental response."
One hundred percent, unadulterated BULLSHIT.
Not only do I predict that circusCLOWN here won't provide a quote--but I'm guessing that this blatant LIE means he is done responding altogether.
odinata 2 days ago
I would say the "psuedo-science" is coming out of the creatard here.
After all, the science AGREES with me....
Read the paper.
odinata 2 days ago
You aren't denying evolution so much as you are proposing a new means of passing on heritable traits.
Which is totally WRONG.
odinata 2 days ago
Evolution is NOT defined as "adding information in the genome."
Creatards aren't smart enough to grasp this concept.
odinata 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think circus KNOWS OR CARES what science is, says, or does.
He seems to prefer his own personal opinions over actual facts.
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can claim that alligators and crocodiles aren't related, but no one is going to tak eyou seriously.
The only support you have comes from the churchies in your Baptist camp that fears and hates the science.
odinata 3 days ago
@odinata Any 3 year old can look at those animals and see they are the same "kind" of animal. I can see why someone spammed you. Probably another atheist ashamed of you remark.
hellavadeal 3 days ago
Comment removed
odinata 3 days ago
@potsocket Because I have a working knowledge of biology so I know why it's garbage?
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
Wrong assertion. Why do you assert that information can only come from a mind? That's wishful thinking at best. Information has always been there and science gradually unravels it but there is absolutely no reason to think that this information came from a mind unless you want to explain how that mind acquired the information. Too much guess work..
pilgrimpater 4 days ago
@pilgrimpater
Information has always been there...? Mind has always been there. You are sinking in metaphysical quicksand, struggling but getting nowhere. What good is information without mind? There is no guess work, we have the fortune of being able to empirically reflect on our own mental aspects. The problem is with materialistic assumptions.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision "What good is information without mind? " It is not a matter of whether it is good or not. Please explain why information cannot exist without a mind capable of discovering it?
"we have the fortune of being able to empirically reflect on our own mental aspects" Yes all sorts of religions & cults conjure up a huge spectrum of baseless BS.
"The problem is with materialistic assumptions." It's all we got. The problem with the supernatural is which BS to cherry pick from.
pilgrimpater 1 day ago
@pilgrimpater
Materialistic assumptions are not all we have, we have information and mental processes (the abstract realm of representations and experience). I guess those count for nothing..? Actually, the materialist is trying to explain away those things by reducing them to brute material interactions. Well, it just doesn't work, hasn't worked, never will work. It's that simple. The supernatural? That distinction is meaningless, especially if YOU define it as something that doesn't exist.
circusOFprecision 1 day ago
@circusOFprecision "we have information " Once it's acquired it's a material entity i.e. the equivalent of your hard drive. "and mental processes" is the equivalent of your CPU. Where is the mystery?
"by reducing them to brute material interactions." Every single aspect/function of the brain can be disabled (as with various examples of brain damage). There is not one aspect of the brain that survives disablement i.e. not one aspect that can't be explained by material functionality.
pilgrimpater 10 hours ago
@pilgrimpater
Information is not material, that is why it can't exist without a mind to process it. It doesn't exist except in the mind. And if physicists and biologists are now perceiving physical phenomenon and material entities as information, well...it doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that the universe is more like an underlying mind than a material world made of concrete entities. You have to do a lot of twisting and denying to avoid this conclusion, which is unintellectual
circusOFprecision 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
There is no information of the type yo claim in a cell.
For example, none of the "information" about your cells came from any magical beings.
odinata 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
".it doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that the universe is more like an underlying mind "
No, it takes an idiot. Most likely a DOPE SMOKING idiot,,,,,
No geniuses hold that opinion whatsoever.....
"You have to do a lot of twisting and denying ..."
It doesn't follow at all from any physical evidence.
odinata 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Why does the fact that organisms evolve frighten you?
Is it because you feel that evolving organism indicate a universe that isn't intelligent?
odinata 1 day ago
@circusOFprecision "Information is not material," Nor is an adjective or a noun. Like those, "information" is a description (or explanation) of the physical. Why do you confuse this with the supernatural? Supernatural is something that defies the laws of nature. "Information" does not defy the Laws of Nature. It is part of it.
"is more like an underlying mind" pure baseless assertion to satisfy wishful thinking.
Some evidence might be a good idea if you want to tout this speculation.
pilgrimpater 10 hours ago
@pilgrimpater Doesn't it require a mind to find the information you talk about?
hellavadeal 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hellavadeal "Doesn't it require a mind to find the information you talk about? "
Of course, in fact many many minds but that doesn't mean to say that a sentient mind (or minds) caused that information, especially out of absolutely nothing.
pilgrimpater 2 days ago
@pilgrimpater
But the whole universe came from nothing with no guidance what so ever and just happens to be exactly as it should to host sentient life. I mean, that makes so much more sense and explains things so much better...not.
circusOFprecision 1 day ago
@circusOFprecision "But the whole universe came from nothing with no guidance" Why claim the universe came from nothing? Can you in fact define nothingness? Why make such assumptions with no basis & no supporting evidence? As for guidance then who or what guided the guider/guiders? All guesswork & wishful thinking. I'd rather say "i don't know" than assert something that is faith based & in all probability wrong.
"and just happens to be exactly as it should to host sentient life." Oh Really?
pilgrimpater 1 day ago
@pilgrimpater
You don't know where the universe came? That's odd, considering all of the assumptions implicit in your line of questioning. I mean, it certainly did NOT come from a non-physical intelligence. So you do know, or you think you know, at least something about it.
Oh really? Yeah, really. The universe leads to life. If you tweak the laws of physics, you get no life.
circusOFprecision 44 minutes ago
@circusOFprecision "You don't know where the universe came?" Well nobody, including you, knows. The singularity of course is a fairly safe bet both from an astrophysics and mathematical point of view but we just don't know. Then, ok, we have to answer the cause of the singularity of course. The problem is, that if you place an unprovable assertion as your explanation then you stop searching for the answer.
"If you tweak the laws you get no life." How do you know that. You may get different life.
pilgrimpater 27 minutes ago
As for the lizards, there was no change in the mitochondrial DNA. Also, the cecal valves are due to a change in the internal environment of the digestive system. This change was caused by diet, which in turn altered the numbers and types of digestive microorganisms. It's adaptation, pure and simple. And even if there was a genetic basis, not merely an epigenetic basis or change in gene expression, the mechanism would still be unknown. But I bet someone would claim random mutation/selection.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision
You would claim NONrandom mutation/selection.
The only problem would be that you couldn't show the mutations wold be non random.
odinata 5 days ago
@odinata
They could be random, but it would need to be demonstrated that they were indeed random. To my knowledge, no one has demonstrated that the wall lizard "evolution" is anything more than adaptive response, which may not even equate to a change in the genome. Here's a question though. Are the physiological responses that allow for enhanced morphological features "random"?
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision
You've never showm that they aren't random.
You've never explained what the visible difference would be between random and non random.
You've never thought the implication of mutations in the genome being non random.
You have, however, admitted that there are random processes in the genome.
And you HAVE admitted that random mutations do indeed occur.
odinata 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"This change was caused by diet"
YOu are talking about "acclimitization", wich does not the same as the process which leads to new adaptations in successive generation.
Your lack of formal education in the field of Biology continually leads you to making these errors.
You simply don't know the terminology or the processes.
odinata 5 days ago
@odinata
I was referring to the cecal valves, which some have claimed are due to a random mutation. Acclimatization, fair enough.
circusOFprecision 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision
Novel features are selected for or against.
Mutation is just one factor that contributes to variety in the gene pool.
Study biology.
You may just find you like it.
Religious opinions are for church.
odinata 5 days ago
@circusOFprecision It doesn't matter if there was a change in mtDNA, It doesn't even make sense why you would bring that up, if a change had to occur in mtDNA for it to be inherited then males wouldn't ever acquire any change. You're still talking about what amounts to Lamarckism, you're still claiming that the environment caused the change as opposed to selecting for the change. You have yet to evidence this on any level.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Why doesn't it matter about the mtDNA? Does mtDNA differ between species or not? Oh, that's right. There were no genomic changes period. My whole point. It's people such as yourself who want to interpret physiological responses and adaptations as "proof" of universal common ancestry. Well, that's the problem. It isn't. And it is the evolutionist that has yet to take these lizards and provide evidence for evolution.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Because mutations aren't only passed on via mtDNA. It's not just observed selection that is extrapolated to common ancestry, it's also homology in various fields that all line up into the same objective tree. The lizards *are* the evidence, they developed new digestive features in a human lifetime. If you're claiming it was a willful response, thats your burden to demonstrate.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Of course mutations aren't only passed on via mtDNA. But I have seen no evidence that there were any genetic changes. As I've said before, the cecal valves are not complex at all. The gut chemistry changed because the diet changed. The physiology of the lizards also changed. You can call it evolution, but these lizards are never going to be anything but lizards.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Then you haven't paid much attention, the cecal valves are not in the parent population.
'never going to be anything but lizards'
Evidence of that?
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No, you need to provide evidence. You are the one making the claim that the lizards came from something different and can turn into something different. The burden is on you to demonstrate it.
The cecal valves don't have to be in the parent population. Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria. Again, the burden is on you to show the genetic basis of the cecal valves and how this genetic basis changed from the parent population to the "evolved" sub-population.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You claimed that they're never going to be anything but lizards, that's a positive claim that requires positive evidence.
'Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria'
That's another positive claim from you that requires positive evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You claim evolution, so prove it. Don't keep trying to put the burden on me. I'm the skeptic calling out your fraudulent claim in this situation. The fact that you moronically try to twist the onus of proof only reinforces my belief that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Did the lizards evolve? Prove it. Are they going to change into something else? Prove it.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You claim the science is wrong, and your religious opinions is right.
The burden is on you.
Do parents with cecal valves have offspring with cecal valves?
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
The problem is, circus, that you don't understand the science you bash based purley on your religious opinions.
You get it wrong time after time.
I know--I'm the one who corrects you.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Now you're shifting the burden of proof and resorting to personal attacks to try to distract from the fact that you've made positive claims but provided no evidence. What is you're evidence that they're never going to be anything but lizards? What is your evidence that the cecal valves were created by the digestive bacteria?
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
In other words, you can't prove your claim. Rest my case. The point here is that I am not going to believe something just because it seems reasonable philosophically. There has to be evidence, not simply extrapolation on vague data points.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You made the claims here then spent half a dozen comments dodging them. You've positively claimed, without support that;
Lizards will always be lizards
and
Cecal valves are produce by bacteria.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You are the one dodging friend. I asked you for the genetic basis of the supposed evolution. Crickets.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision No, you've made two major claims that you have yet to even try to substantiate. Don't project your dodging as if it alleviates your burden.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The next time you are tempted to accuse a Creationist or someone who disagrees with you of goal post shifting or dodging the question, remember your actions here in this conversation. And then perhaps show a little humility. You obviously can't back your claim of evolution in the lizards with anything substantial. You can't demonstrate that a sub-population of lizards here will change into something fundamentally different. So just be honest. You have nothing here.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision My actions in this conversation have been pointing out that you've dodged two clear and positive claims repeatedly. You haven't even attempted to define intelligence, and that's been well over a month ago since I repeatedly asked you to do so.
'So just be honest. You have nothing here.'
Again, see; projection.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision
"Rest my case."
What case.
You made an assertion but you didn't provide any evidence for that assertion.
The point is, you refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't confirm your religious opinion.
But as we see, this is due largley to your personal ignorance.
You make claims based on this ignorance, but you have no evidence to support the claims.
Smoking dope hasn't helped you in this matter.
odinata 3 days ago
@odinata
He is refusing to back his own claims. Not my problem. I don't smoke dope. Resorting to ad hominems doesn't help you back his claims either. It just makes you sound like a mean person and a liar, surely you don't want to resort back to that nonsense do you? You've come quite far in recent debate.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision The bacteria in the wall lizard's gut actually are responsible for breaking down and fermenting the plant material that the lizards eat.
villontre 3 days ago
@villontre
Yes, there is a new symbiotic relationship. The new diet provided a niche for the bacteria, the host organism physiologically responded. The cecal valves are a part of this process. Again, you can call it evolution. But no one is pointing out the mechanism and/or giving a scientific explanation. People are just saying "Look! A new feature! Evolution!" and then claiming this proves that the grand theory of evolution is true. That's all fine and dandy, nothing scientific about it.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision I do know that there are other lizards that have cecal valves. So to say that it is a completely new structure in lizards is misrepresenting the facts. Those Italian wall lizards also had the cecal valve genes from the original parent population and then they were past down to future generations.
villontre 3 days ago
@villontre
The evolutionists are saying that the parent population did NOT have the cecal valves. But that is a different claim than saying they did NOT have the genes. And yes, cecal valves are present in other lizards for the exact same reason they are now present in the wall lizards, diet. Either way, I've seen zero evidence from genetics that demonstrates the cecal valves are a completely novel trait and/or what mechanism put them there.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision That's right ! Scientists need to find a completely novel trait and /or an original biological structure in lizards or in any other creature for that matter in order to call it evolution. It has to be so novel that a new name has to be given to that particular novel structure. Evolutionist see a new hairstyle on a lion's mane and say it is a sign of evolution. LOL
villontre 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@villontre
Wrong.
Evolution is the change in phenotype/genotype over generations.
"Completely novel" has nothing to do with it.
The wings of bats are the fingers of other mammals--not something "completely novel.
Adaptations.
Learn the science before you bitch about it.
odinata 3 days ago
@villontre
That's true, but even more importantly, they ignore the genetic evidence between sequences of DNA up to the level of organism. At the same time they assume that selection is happening down in the DNA. It's not. It's happening at the individual and population levels. Their unwillingness to look at all of the non-random, adaptive processes in between is their most fatal flaw. But it's above most of their heads just how seriously it destroys their precious idea.
circusOFprecision 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"they assume that selection is happening down in the DNA. It's not"
Selection operates at the population level.
But every genotype has a phenotype that uniquely corresponds to it....
odinata 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
The bacteria are not responsible for creating new structures in each generation of lizards.
These adaptations are inherited.
Why don't you simply answer the questions, circus?
odinata 3 days ago
@odinata
If you study symbiogenesis, you would understand that the presence of various bacteria impact not only the physiology of their host organism, but can also impact their genome. It isn't a blind assertion, it is a scientific fact. Of course the adaptations were inherited, even though that contradicts the assertion by some that the cecal valves are a completely novel trait. But surely you can see the contradiction, can't you?
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"People are just saying "Look! A new feature! Evolution!"
No, science is saying: "look, a ne phenotype.
And it has a coreresponding genotype".
That is the DEFINITION of evolution.
Your #3 problem is that you don't understand the terminology.
Your #2 problem is that you can't think logically or critically, and your #1 problem is that you think your religious opinions trump scientific facts.
odinata 3 days ago
@odinata
You aren't presenting a shred of evidence to back up what you are saying. Even if it is true that the parent population had no cecal valves or the genes to create them, you have not provided any genetic evidence what so ever to demonstrate where and how they suddenly came about.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Here's the shred:
Cecal valves are a phenotype--they have a genotype that corresponds.
If what you claimed were true, cecal valves would not be present unless the bacteria were present.
YOU are the one who hasnt' presented a shred.
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You don't smoke dope?
Then why did you say: ""Funk for your soul, smoke dat skunk in a bowl"
Come back and answer the questions, circus.
Otherwise, you're just a troll.
Apparently a dope smoking troll.
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@villontre
The bacteria are not responsible for creating new structures in each generation of lizards.
These adaptations are inherited.
odinata 3 days ago
@villontre
The adaptation in the lizard provides a selective advantage.
odinata 2 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
All you need to do is research cecal valves for yourself. I know you think you are an expert in all things evolutionary, but you could learn a thing or two if you just go look.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You simply pop poo anything evolution because of your YEC religious opinions.
You don't have any evidence against it.
You don't even understand the terminology.
YOU made the claim that contradictts the science.
You CAN'T provide the evidence to back thos3e claims.
Fail.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision I know you think your projection of your biological illiteracy someone takes the burden of proof off of you, but it doesn't. You've made the claims, you have to back them up or admit they're baseless.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
Wouldn't it be easy enough to find a lizard with cecal valves, and the egg of a lizard with cecal valves, open it up, and se if the lizard inside has cecal valves?
If the lizard in the egg has cecal valves, they could not have been created by bacteria in the digestive track--right?
odinata 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Cecal valves are related directly to digestive processes having to do with bacteria. It isn't really a claim, it's an observed fact.
As for the lizards not changing, that isn't a positive claim at all. The positive claim is the one you imply when you suggest that the lizards will turn into something else. Your claim raises scientifically testable questions like what is the mechanism of this change? So I'm asking you to demonstrate it, back it up. Otherwise it's hot air.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Your claim was that the cecal valves were caused by the bacteria. Can you support this? Yes or no.
Yes, you claimed that the lizards won't change, that's a positive claim. Can you support this? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I didn't say they are caused by bacteria. I said that the presence of new/different levels of certain bacteria related to a change in diet caused a physiological response. The cecal valves are required. You want to say the evolved. So show me the genetic evidence.
A lizard has lizard offspring. It's observable fact. No claim required. You are the one claiming they will change. Proof and evidence please.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, you did.
You made the claim they will always be lizards, can you evidence either of these claims? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No I didn't, I said that the presence of bacteria in light of a dietary change caused a physiological response. The bacteria are an indirect cause, but also evidence of what was going on. Perhaps you want to reread the article.
The offspring of those lizards will be lizards. It is a promise. So I'm good. Now it's your turn. Give me the genetic basis of change and your evidence that they will evolve into something else? Or you can keep running away. Last chance.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, you did. Your exact words were "Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria"
No, it's a claim, the same claim you have yet to evidence.
Can you support either of these claims? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Why do you dodge? Your defeatist attitude really illustrates your willful ignorance. But whatever man, go school some Creationists and dispense with backing up your claims. Just put it on someone else as usual.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision It's very telling that you think dodging is sign of a defeatist attitude when you've been the only one in this discussion to dodge anything.
You've claimed that bacteria caused the valves and that lizards will always be lizards.
Can you evidence either of these claims? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Can you demonstrate that the lizards evolved? Can you demonstrate how? Apparently not.
It's very simple, look at other herbivores with cecal valves and look at the bacterial makeup of their digestive system. Then determine how gene expression controls cecal valve development. If common ancestry is true, it actually undermines your entire point. The cecal valves aren't novel at all. They are probably turned on and off genetically. Show me evidence otherwise.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You made the claims that 1: Bacteria produced the cecal valves and 2: Lizards will always be lizards.
Can you evidence these claims? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
First evidence your claims. More cowardice? Smells like it.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, you definitely reek of cowardice and projection, what with continually dodging my questions.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Symbiogenesis and gene expression is a scientifically valid idea. Different food, different bacterial niche, bacteria begin to live in that niche, physiological response, gene expression triggered, bam. There it is. Other lizards have cecal valves, it's in their DNA. Show me, with evidence, how I am wrong. Or stop complaining.
Now it's your turn. Explain to me how the lizards evolved and what it means from your point of view, but at least try to evidence it.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You didn't say that the gene was triggered by bacteria, you said that bacteria produced the valves.
Can you evidence this? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No I didn't. And the fact that you are trying to twist what I am saying to "win" an argument and avoid evidencing your own claims is completely discrediting you as an intellectual. But it's nothing new with you.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You lost the argument.
Hatchlings with cecal valves proves your assertion to be false.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, you did, no twisting required. Your own words were; "Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria"
That's a clear and concise claim. Can you evidence it? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
If ""Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria" were a true statement, then hatchlings with no exposure to these bacteria would have no cecal valves.
This is not the case.
Your assertion is false.
Cecal valves are an adaptation (note how that word is used properly), not an acclimatization.
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
The presence of cecal valves in hatchlings indicate that it is a change in phenotype, as hatchlings have not been exposed to the bacteria.
odinata 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Come on TSF, I would really like to know the truth. But every single time I investigate this particular situation, all I hear are evolutionists claiming a phenotype change with zero, absolutely zero genetic evidence to back it up.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision I'm waiting for you to support your claims or admit you can't.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I have already explained to you exactly what I think is going on. I don't have to support the claim that the lizards won't change into something else. I know they won't. And no one else will claim they will either. But you somehow shot yourself in the foot when you inadvertently claimed they will change into something else by trying to refute me. That is a truly positive claim. They WILL (positive) change. So, evidence it or not. You won't be able to demonstrate it.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, you do, you said lizards will always be lizards, that's a positive claim that requires positive evidence. You also said that bacteria produced the cecal valves, another positive claim requiring positive evidence.
Two claims, zero evidence thus far. Can you support these claims? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Until we die, those lizards will produce lizards. That is a fact. There is my evidence.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You didn't say that they'll only produce lizards in a human lifetime, you said they'll never produce anything but lizards.
Can you evidence this claim? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
What, may I ask in your evolutionary imagination, are they going to produce besides lizards? And how are you going to be able to scientifically demonstrate it? You can keep asking me to evidence a claim, but you really should think about evidencing your own claims.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision It was your claim, don't try to shift the burden of proof. Can you evidence it? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Will they change into something else besides lizards? That is the positive claiming. Saying that they will keep producing lizards until extinction is perfectly in line with all of the evidence. If you have an alternative, present it. Oh, and prove there is no God while you are at it, I mean since you are demanding all this proof for a negative (won't change).
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You claimed they will always be lizards, that's the positive claim. Your claim that you would need to either evidence or admit you can't.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Lizards are related to snakes.
Obviously the scaled reptiles produced lizards AND non-lizards.
There you go.
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
The presence of cecal valves in hatchlings is the evidence that they are not simply a stimulus/response to some bacteria.
But even if that were the case, the fact that this stimulus/response does not occur in the parent population indicates its an adaptation--not an acclimatization.
You are severely handicapped by your lack of formal education in Biology.
odinata 3 days ago
@odinata
You are leaving out the simple fact of epigenetic inheritance, which can explain why hatchlings would already have the cecal valves. Look, if you have the genetic evidence that there were mutations or something, just provide it and settle the issue. But my ideas about genetic expression and diet, coupled with symbiogenesis are scientifically valid ideas that do explain the evidence. So, you can't just say I'm wrong without any evidence of your own.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Still waiting on the evidence for bacterial production of the valves. Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Bacterial production? Pay attention. The bacteria don't manufacture cecal valves. And I never said they did. I said their presence, due to the change in diet caused the cecal valves. Genetically, the development of the valves was switched on because of the presence of the bacteria. Get it? This kind of thing has been demonstrated many times. If it isn't correct, why not? Oh that's right, because mutations did it...
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision Yes, you did. Now you're just lying about your claim, which was "Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria" it was 3 hours ago.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"I said their presence, due to the change in diet caused the cecal valves."
DUE TO THE CHANGE IN THEIR DIET.
HAtchlings have HAD a diet yet, but they have cecal valves.
FAIL.
odinata 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Just like the last time when I destroyed you on the topic of microbial intelligence, you are unable to produce a shred of an argument or a piece of evidence. So all you have is the willful ignorance card. Man, you play that card like a champ. News flash, it will never take the place of a logical, intellectual argument. And it only weakens your position because you demonstrate you can't even hypothesize about it.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Destroyed?
Are you HIGH on MARIJUANA?
Hatchlings have no diet, but they have cecal valves.
YOU LOSE.
Consider yourself destroyed.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Much like now, when you were making the claim of intelligence on the microbial level, you were completely unable to even define the term intelligence, let alone evidence it existed in microbial life.
You seem to be under the impression that merely making an assertion makes it true, sorry, it doesn't.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"you are unable to produce a shred of an argument or a piece of evidence."
OVER and OVER the evidence has shown that your claim:
"the change in diet caused the cecal valves."
The evidence shows that the change in diet resulted in the EVOLUTION of cecal valves.
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Why would anyone claim that cecal valves are an example of epigenetic inheritance?
odinata 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Look, I have presented the evidence--the hatchlings have the phenotype--and the genotype.
That IS evolution--not acclimatization.
odinata 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
How did the lizards evolve? What is your genetic evidence?
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision I'm still waiting on you to evidence your claim that bacteria produced the valves.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
They didn't produce the cecal valves. I explained to you that their presence caused the cecal valves. The cecal valves are genetically expressed by the host organism. It's called symbiogenesis and I explained this to you months ago. Also, you've never demonstrated any other mechanism as to how the valves came about. At least I have put forth something, you just point and say "evolutionary magic!". It's so utterly pathetic, why do you let yourself get away with it?
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You specifically claimed they did.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I claimed what I claimed. You twisted it into a straw man. Sad but true.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You claimed diet causes cecal valves in these lizards
You claimed wrong.
Their existence in hatchlings proves you wrong.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision /all_comments?v=EuCN7piOu7w search for : Cecal valves are created by the digestive bacteria
You claimed exactly what I said because I was copying and pasting from your own comment.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
And I explained to you what I meant by that statement, which you continue to dodge.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You continue do dodge the fact that cecal valves in hatchlings prove that cecal valves are an evolved trait and not an acclimatization to bacteria--as you falsely clam.
odinata 3 days ago
@odinata
It's called epigenetic inheritance. Don't throw out other possibilities, especially when you lack the evidence to confirm your own assertion.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Its not an example of epigeneitic inheritance.
But even if it WERE, it would still be an example EVOLUTION.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision No, you tried to dance around having made it, the claim itself is very clear.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Really? What am I claiming then? Because so far you continue to present a straw man. But here is your chance to clear that up.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Your claim was perfectly clear, that the valves were created by the bacteria. If it was a misspeak, that's on you, not on me.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Whether it was a misspeak or not is irrelevant because I have already articulated several times now EXACTLY what I meant. So what did I mean?
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You mean you're shifting from the unevidenced claim of the valves being produced by the bacteria to the unevidenced claim that the bacteria triggered the valves.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No, I mean that the presence of bacteria can and does trigger physiological responses and there are many many examples of this. You simply rule out a plausible scientific explanation in favor of magical mutations. It's ridiculous. Especially since you offer zero evidence for your position. Please tell me you aren't representing science, just your willfully ignorant opinion.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Where is your evidence that bacteria triggered it in these particular lizards?
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Where is your evidence that it was due to random mutations? My evidence is in the dietary change which was accompanied by the niche for the bacteria plus the many instances where bacteria have been shown to trigger physiological responses. It isn't a full proof assertion but damn, it knocks the socks off of your magical mutation hypothesis. Again, where is your evidence for random mutations? Anyone able to answer for him? I'd like to see it.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision No, that was your claim based on unrelated observations. Where is your evidence that that's how it occurred in this specific population? No, bare assertion does not 'knock the socks off' anything, you keep giving the impression that you think ignorance is an argument, it's not.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Okay, I can't help you anymore. For some one who is "scientifically literate", you sure do put your intellect in a very tiny box. And you didn't even attempt to convince me your position was correct. You didn't even put forth a hypothesis.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You can't help yourself anymore.
You haven't been able to back your assertions.
In fact, your assertions have been shown to be false.
Bacteria don't CAUSE cecal valves.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You've never been able to help because you think accepting alternate hypotheses just because they're different somehow makes it scientific. It's not a matter of putting my intellect in a box, it's that I realize being open minded doesn't mean accepting unevidenced claims just because their proponents think it deserves fair time.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I'm making a prediction that cecal valves are genetically suppressed when the diet changes. But when the bacteria come back in presence of the new diet, there is some form of chemical communication that causes gene expression to turn back on. Epigenetically, this "new information" about the environment is inherited by the offspring. That's what happened, not random mutations and a selection process. It happened WAY oo quickly for that. What I am saying will be confirmed.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision So then you have a hypothesis and an irrelevant prediction. Doesn't help you at all. Also you're ignoring the fact that the genes for the valves were not in the parent population.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I've heard conflicting evidence of that. I have heard that the genes were present. But interestingly, I have much more plausible explanations than you do. You would have people believe that the cecal valve gene magically appeared through mutations. I mean, seriously? So, evidence please.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision No, you don't, given that the genes did not exist to be triggered by the bacteria. I realize you have no idea what you're talking about so I can see why mutations might seem like magic, but they're not. Mutations affect genetic regions that express things which we call traits, such as morphology IE features in the digestive tract.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"Given the genes did not exist..."
Okay, given. Now could you please provide evidence, a source perhaps?
Your morphological evidence doesn't substitute for the genetic evidence no matter how much you wish you could trick people into thinking that it does.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision You do understand that if the gene doesn't exist at all, that it can't be triggered by a bacteria or otherwise, right? It doesn't have to substitute for the genetic evidence, it's concordant with the genetic evidence. You can keep demonstrating your egregious ignorance of genetics and now morphology, but it will never constitute a valid argument and I'll just keep calling you on it.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
But it can magically appear through mutations in less than 40 years?
It would be concordant with the genetic evidence, if indeed you had presented such genetic evidence, which you have not. But there is one thing you are forgetting. The genome is dynamic and adaptive, and many other populations of lizards DO have cecal valves. So given all of that, I'm not just going to accept your mutation theory because you assert it. Fair enough? Something a little more substantial...
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Mutations occur naturally, affecting phenotype with no magic required. Other populations may have cecal valves, their parent population did not. That's specifically why it's so significant. You can remain willfully ignorant, it's not going to affect the facts.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
Comment removed
odinata 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
What caused the mutations? How many did it require? What was involved? How did the mutations effect gene expression? How did it all come together so quickly from scratch? Where is the data? You can't answer any of those questions. So, your nice little overly applied concept is fine if it suits you, but it doesn't explain anything. But I have been laying down natural occurring phenomenon of my own which you simply ignore.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
What did NOT cause the cecal valves?
YOUR claim--the bacteria caused it--is obviously not the case.
Sorry bud.
odinata 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Nice example of question saying there. I haven't ignored anything, you keep making assertions, I keep asking for evidence, you keep dodging. I would have no problem accepting the valves being triggered by bacteria if that's what the evidence showed, but it doesn't.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Your evidence doesn't even exist. You can't show me the genetic changes or what caused them. You are just assuming a random mutation selection process.
Think about it, without the bacteria, there would be no way for the lizards to sustain the diet they switched to. Without the cecal valves, the digestive process would be too difficult to achieve. Yet magically, all of this is solved by random mutations? That isn't an explanation, nor have you backed it with evidence.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Again, mutations are not magic merely because you're illiterate in genetics.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You still haven't explained the cecal valves through your mechanism and/or articulated the evidence that supports your random mutation assertion. So, just because your story sounds magical doesn't mean that I am illiterate in genetics.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision I already did, mutations can affect morphology, the cecal valves are a morphological feature. Not sure why this is hard to grasp, every morphological feature on the planet has been the result of descent with modification. If you think my story sounds magical, then yes, you're illiterate in genetics. This is first day stuff.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Key word CAN. No evidence, just an assumption.
This is indeed first day stuff, and that is part of the problem. You are ignoring a whole host of other biological phenomenon that are integrated into gene expression and gene function. I get your assertion, I don't see any evidence what so ever to back it up. Like I said before, it sounds simple and routine, but this is science. And you are throwing out a lot of possibilities for a vague assumption.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision Not an assumption, the valves don't exist in the parent population but they do in that population. Not sure if you're aware of even the basic principles of science, but there are no certainties, there is the best explanation given the data, and in this case it's random mutation and natural selection.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Actually, based upon consensus, when little else is known, that is simply the default explanation, not necessarily the best. Why? Because we know of other factors and biological processes that influence these sorts of events, which you are completely and utterly ignoring and/or indirectly implying through assumption.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
@circusOFprecision I'm not ignoring anything, you haven't presented anything but bare assertion.
So what definition of intelligence applies to bacteria?
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
@TheScienceFoundation
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. The fact remains that your alternative is bankrupt any sort of verifiability. It's just one overused, uninteresting, vague, non-explanation.
circusOFprecision 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"your alternative is bankrupt any sort of verifiability."
Its already been verified.
Hatchlings have cecal valves.
Its a heritable trait--not an acclimatization.
odinata 3 days ago